“The Obama Method” -or- “How to win an election by not being on the ballot”

Barack Obama made one decision this election season that very well may have won him the presumptuous nomination.  That decision was to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan.  The irony of such a move is obvious now. By removing his name from the ballot, he managed to enhance his own chances of winning.  When the UN or Jimmy Carter see this kind of maneuver in developing countries they call it what it is…rigging an election.  The rest of us have another name for it, banana republic, and we’re not talking retail.  But in most cases, the offender takes his or her name off of the ballot to avoid losing.  In Obama’s case he managed to avoid losing and later was actually rewarded with votes he didn’t receive for doing so.  

Here’s a question I’ll bet many people haven’t asked themselves.  Suppose Hillary had taken her name off the ballot as well.  Would Obama’s surrogates have petitioned for ALL of the votes?  He was awarded all of the uncommitted, so if Hillary had not been on the ballot, that would have been all the votes, right?   It seems that by keeping her name on the ballot, Hillary actually helped Obama in Michigan, because if she hadn’t there would have been no way to fairly partition the delegates.  People would have laughed if he had tried to claim the whole prize.  That’s why the only way to fairly decide an election is by the way voters actually cast their votes.  Obama should get NOTHING because his name was not on the ballot, plain and simple.  And actually stealing votes from Hillary and giving them to Obama just adds insult to injury.

What is the precedent for such a move?  Is it ever OK to remove your name from a ballot and then dispute the ensuing election?  I think not, but let’s look at some other examples.  First there is the case of Florida.  Same actors, but different outcome.  Obama did want to remove his name from the ballot in that primary as well (because he knew he was going to lose), but that would have been against the law.  Consider the following form the Florida statute governing electors and elections:

(3)  A candidate’s name shall be printed on the presidential preference primary ballot unless the candidate submits to the Department of State, prior to the second Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary, an affidavit stating that he or she is not now, and does not presently intend to become, a candidate for President at the upcoming nominating convention. If a candidate withdraws pursuant to this subsection, the Department of State shall notify the state executive committee that the candidate’s name will not be placed on the ballot. The Department of State shall, no later than the third Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the presidential preference primary, certify to each supervisor of elections the name of each candidate for political party nomination to be printed on the ballot.

By the time he (and the DNC) realized that a loss in Florida might spell the end of Obama’s campaign, it was too late to take his name off the ballot.  Many Obots argue that this is just a procedural issue.  But there is a very valid reason for putting a time limit on when ballots can be changed.  Suppose Dictator X in the Republic of Bananas decides to hold elections because the masses are getting restless.  He has to demonstrate his legitimacy as a ruler by allowing the people to participate in an election.  So an opposition candidate comes forward and the campaign is on. Now Mr. X has no intention of giving up his power, so what does he do if the opposition becomes too popular?  Well, one option is to remove his name from the ballot and then declare that any resulting election is illegitimate because the people didn’t have a “choice”. 

Unfortunately we have an example of this type of election fraud in our very own country. This time the dictatorship in question is an affluent suburb of Houston called Sugarland. And in this case, the dictator wants to put up a front man to take his place on the ballot because he knows he himself (under indictment) cannot win.  From the Boston Globe:

 Former majority leader Tom DeLay said yesterday he is taking the necessary steps to remove his name from the November ballot, giving his party a chance to field a write-in candidate in hopes of holding the House seat.

I wonder how the “progressive blogosphere” reacted to that move.  Well, let’s take a look.  First from TPM:

The second issue is whether the attempt to remove Delay’s name is unconstitutional based on when exactly Delay has to be a resident of the district. (The Democrats argue that according to the Constitution, residency can only be established after election, if you are on the ballot, you are one, and can only be determined to be a resident once you are elected)

So in that case, the Democrats were arguing that the only way he could take his name off the ballot was to prove that he was no longer a resident of the district, and since his name was already on the ballot that proved residency (a chicken and egg thing).  Otherwise, to take his name off the ballot would be unconstitutional.  I don’t think they want to make that same argument about Obama.  In fact some of them were even calling Delay’s move a “Republican scheme”

Remember that scheme hatched by Texas Republicans in which Tom DeLay would support a write-in candidate for his own seat, thus avoiding having to run himself?

It’s awfully clever, no question. But it looks like the ruse has just hit a big snag — there are now two candidates who want to be written in, which could mean a split GOP vote and a more likely victory for Dem challenger Nick Lampson

And what of Lord Kos of the Orange Cheeto? Here’s what he had to say:

Holy crap, DeLay’s gambit to get off the November ballot crash and burned. A judge has ruled with the Democrat and against Republican efforts to swap DeLay’s name with someone else.

Sorry to link to him, but anytime he can be exposed for the lying hypocrite that he is the better.  And what happened to DeLay?  He was unsuccessful in his bid to try to rig the election.  Obama, on the other hand, got away with it.

But then again it is much more common practice to try to remove your opponents name from the ballot.  Obama is an old hand at that too.  Just ask Alice Palmer:

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

or Stephen Colbert:

Two prominent supporters of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in South Carolina called state Democratic Party officials and urged them to keep funnyman Stephen Colbert’s name off the primary ballot, according to party officials and Obama supporters.

But seriously, this is the kind of thing we expect from countries that are less experienced with democracy, like say, Mexico:

López Obrador’s opponents – domestic and foreign – fear that the leader of Mexico’s electoral left wing will be unstoppable at the ballot box sixteen months from now. And so forces accustomed to stealing and fixing elections for 75 years in this country have come to a last resort: A dirty plot to remove his name from the ballot.

Barack Obama is a dirty politician.  He wins elections through fraud.  When we get to a point that elections are meaningless then our democracy is finished.  If this is the change that we’ve been waiting for, count me out.